Where in the Bible is homosexuality prohibited?

[Kulindahr]

Q.E.D. - you obviously didn't read the whole post and in your rush to reply have missed out on all the extra reading material I provided that shows how liberal (and more specifically pro-homosexual) 'Christians' re-translate that passage to suit themselves whereas the vast majority of Christians in the world hold to the (now) historical meaning/interpretation which is a condemnation of homosexuality - BUT - and here's where everyone else who's reading this thread will begin to see what's going on - on this subject I could present you with any chapter and verse that has been accepted to mean Point A for the last few decades or even hundreds of years and you will promptly put forward an alternative interpretation/translation - YET - if I were to bring up some of the more substantive texts concerning more fundamental doctrines like the deity of Jesus and the other such matters you would insist that those texts be understood as they have been for hundreds of years. Interesting that.

You learned to shred the Bible well, whatever "church" it was taught you.
I read the whole post, and it has nothing to do with what I've said or have been saying. I'm not playing any "liberal" games, I'm reading what scripture says -- and the Bible itself tells us, in the Prophets, what Sodom and Gomorrah was about, and it doesn't even mention sex -- it mentions hospitality (that's been pointed out before in this thread and others; go back and read it).
You're picking and choosing what parts of the Bible you want to attack, and you're reading them from an alien perspective. Your approach to the Bible is the same as the "Rev" Phelps: ignore history, ignore culture, ignore linguistics, ignore grammar, ignore literature types, and make it mean what your prejudices want it to.

 

[Kulindahr]

Your attempt to separate yourself from 'most people in religion' doesn't work with me Kulindahr and I won't let you away with that by virtue of that little act of ingratiation regarding my sig. You are as guilty as any other Christian of imposing your views on the bible and have demonstrated that here in abundance.

In other words, you aren't interested in listening, thinking, or learning; you're so set in your hatred that you just paint everyone with a brush and refuse to see anything you don't want to.
If you've read my posts in this forum in the least, you'll know that I don't impose my views on the Bible -- I read it for what it says, and face that, whether I like it or not.
Contrary to the brainwashed, nearly brain-dead sort of fundamentalist group you claim you were with, there are Christians who think. We don't swallow everything we're told, we don't march along blindly. As with Martin Luther, we aren't even always happy about some of the things the Bible has to say. But faced with the profound evidence, we knuckle down and work through things, and go on. We don't support wars of aggression, theocracies, police states, legislation of morals, persecution of others, etc.
I know you'll explode at the mention of evidence, but you've built yourself a nice little filter that lets you rule out any actual evidence, so, well, live with it -- there's evidence, and it's sufficiently strong that numerous deep-thinking, well-educated people throughout history who have set out to "prove" it all false have changed their minds.
You say you were a fundamentalist Christian; now you're just as much a fundamentalist, just clinging blindly to another ideology, reciting the slogans, chanting the mantras, and refusing to engage in actual critical thought. There's no reasoning with a fundamentalist of any stripe... more the fool me for continuing to try.
In saying you're not going to listen to me tell who I am, you're just going to catalog me in your defamatory label, you confess your real agenda: hate. They say love is blind, but hate is blinder, refusing to see absolutely nothing different in anything that doesn't bow down and submit. You've demonstrated that you're a fanatic very thoroughly -- you cast aside common rules of evidence, logic, language, and anything else, as you please... all marks of the fanatic. And you regularly impute to others what you hate, whether they hold to it or not.

QUOTE=noelie;2944421]
Religion is something left over from the infancy of our intelligence, it will fade away as we adopt reason and science as our guidelines.
Bertrand Russell

Religions that teach brotherly love have been used as an excuse for persecution, and our profoundest scientific insight is made into a means of mass destruction.
Bertrand Russell

Religions, which condemn the pleasures of sense, drive men to seek the pleasures of power. Throughout history power has been the vice of the ascetic.
Bertrand Russell[/QUOTE]

Other than the fact that Russell is flat wrong on a couple of counts, do you see that he contradicts himself in the above quotes?

 

[Kulindahr]

Kulindahr you have decided that the passage refers to hospitality.

There are loads of eminent biblical scholars who don't agree with your interpretation. I even gave you the Hebrew word and some of what the experts said. You're so blinkered that you refuse to entertain anyone else's interpretations and then just lash out at me and accuse me of the very things that you yourself are doing.

You're ignoring decades (if not hundreds) of years of biblical commentary regarding that passage and you're dismissing the vast majority of the rest of Christianity just because you want it to say nothing bad about homosexuality.

I made a very clear argument and have provided experts and references but all you give me is your frightened ignorant bile. How's your cognitive dissonance doing - having problems reducing it? Aaah.

No, I didn't decide it was about hospitality -- the Bible did.
But, given that you were a fundamentalist, you're probably ignorant of that.
God says in the Prophets what the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was, a fact that's been pointed out in this thread. Homophobia through history has led most people to ignore that passage, but it's there: the Bible defines what Sodom and Gomorrah was about, and it says it was about hospitality (I'll even give you a hint -- it's in Ezekiel).

Once more you impute your motives to me. I want the tale to say what it has to say -- while you're clinging to the same sort of attitude that declared for centuries that if you weren't white, you were less than human; that message was preached "from the Bible" out of bigotry and ignorance, over and over, but without any foundation. Given that the Bible itself says (in Ezekiel) just what Sodom's sin was, clinging to something contrary is foolish even for Christians, and utterly incomprehensible in someone who asserts that there is no God. You argue as though you have some vested interest in the issue, whereas you should be the one interested in examining what's really going on -- but you buy into long-established blindness and prejudice without hesitation.

BTW, I don't need you to "give me" the Hebrew word; I read it in the Hebrew. And I read all you dished out, but it all fades in the face of one thing: any view that doesn't follow what the Bible says that tale is about is wrong.

 

[ronboy]

Folks, I will ask once again to disagree respectfully! Please remember that this is indeed a no flames zone. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.....

 

[Kulindahr]

Out of that irrational rant, one thing, Noelie: I didn't accuse you of being a fundamentalist; you said you were one. I merely pointed out that you're still in that mindset.

And your most recent post point demonstrates it again: all you're interested in doing here is jumping around grabbing texts that say what you've already decided you're going to believe. That's typical fundamentalist thinking -- if it can be so dignified. You refuse to consider any information that doesn't go your way, such as context, and by that I mean cultural as well as textual. I won't bother to repeat myself about that, since you have made plain you don't want to hear anything contrary to what your fundamentalist background taught you.

I have no clue where your tirade about the Hebrew yadah came from -- it's laughable. Why do you drag these things in from nowhere?

Oh -- as to rage... my actual mood here is one of puzzlement; namely, why you're so full of bile on the subject that you won't engage in rational discussion, but keep hopping about like a toad on a hot grill. You dash from flat out condemning all religion, to calling on authority, to ignoring actual scholarship, to echoing the fundamentalist you say you once were, to rejecting the teachings you got there but using the "reasoning" thereof.

 

[Kulindahr]

I give up.
You aren't seeing anything but what you want to see -- the same "tactics" you say you were taught, and you continue to use. I keep trying to engage in rational discussion, and you only see the stuff you think everyone does. You won't stand still anywhere and actually talk about things, you're so bent on "proving" your position.
If you've actually read many of my posts -- you haven't, or you wouldn't make the claim you do above -- you'd know that I enjoy dissent... when it's actually dissent, based on reason, working with the text. Your approach isn't any of that; it's been to disparage every attempt at actually looking at the substance of things, and cling to the interpretations you were taught as the Christian you say you once were.
Your constant negative assaults on attempts at communication make any further attempts at discussion impossible. I tried here what I did in the evolution thread -- returning to actually looking at the Bible and what it really says -- but you greeted it here also with disrespect and refusal to grapple with substance.
You remain a fundamentalist; you've just adopted a new religion.

As for my alleged fears and insecurities, your grasping at that shows to me you have a serious fear you abandoned the truth, and have a deep need to see others as somehow less than you for standing fast.

 

[ronboy]

I'm closing this thread for a few days to allow emotions to cool down. It shall be reviewed in a few days. Thank you.

 

[ronboy]

My goal in closing this thread was to allow tempers to cool. As this has been a peaceful week in the R&S forum, and Jubbers have been following the Code of Conduct, I see no reason for this thread to remain closed any longer.

Jubbers held up their end of the deal, and so I must also do the same.

Remember...the R&S Forum is a NO FLAMES ZONE. The Religion and Spirituality Forum is a place where members can discuss their beliefs (or searches for belief) without fear of being abused or without fear that their very belief will be trashed.

Thanks...

 

[AngelBoy]

My goal in closing this thread was to allow tempers to cool. As this has been a peaceful week in the R&S forum, and Jubbers have been following the Code of Conduct, I see no reason for this thread to remain closed any longer.

I’ll welcome this thread back to life with the following comments:

There are some quotations from the bible that (taken at face value) are unequivocally against homosexuality

If you believe the Bible is more in the nature of guidelines (like the Pirates code!) then these aren’t a problem – just bits that happen to be wrong.

If you believe that everything said in the book is the literal “word of God” – then you’re fucked if you happen to be Gay – better to wait for the movie of the book

 

[Spensed]

...There are some quotations from the bible that (taken at face value) are unequivocally against homosexuality

Not true. The Bible is a much translated and interpreted work. No where is it "unequivocably against homosexuality". Even the ol' Catholic Church teaches that it's ok to be a 'mo provided your balls stay blue.

The devil can quote scripture. But objectively there is ongoing debate about what, if anything, it is about dicks and ass that the Bible proscribes. It troubles Jesus himself so much that he never mentions it once.

And, unless I'm wrong, I don't think the Bible says anything at all about scissoring, bumping tacos or any of the other pleasures of our lesbian sisters.

The bottom line is there are hundred of thousands, if not millions, of educated gay Christians in the world who see no problem in reconciling being gay with their belief in the Bible.

 

[AngelBoy]

Not true. The Bible is a much translated and interpreted work. No where is it "unequivocably against homosexuality". Even the ol' Catholic Church teaches that it's ok to be a 'mo provided your balls stay blue.

You say that there is no explicit part of the Bible against Homosexuality?

I would maybe discount the Old Testament (Leviticus etc) – but from the New Testament (Romans 1) – this is fairly unequivocal:

26 For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error

You do completely misunderstand Religion if you fail to see what any fundamentalist can read and easily understand from the scriptures.

Saying this part of the Bible is actually a typo would seem to undermine the truth of the whole idea – most “Holy texts” aren’t viewed by their followers as only part true in some bits.

But this is the sort of “mental gymnastics” some liberal Christians are good at

 

[grady26]

Puty,


When I read such questions as yours, I have to respond about the condemnation of homosexuals. You will find many, as have been cited in the above entries. However, those are mostly from the Old Testament, which is about a god who seems to have revenge and anger on his mind.

Try the New Testament. The first four books, the Gospels, are the teachings of Jesus Christ who says NOTHING about homosexuals ity. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are all about compassion, love, and forgiveness.

Sure, later when Paul starts writing his letters in the New Testament, he managed to be a gay basher, but think of him: Paul was Saul, who before his "conversion," made it a habit of killing people who disagreed with his beliefs. So much for Paul/Saul.

Stick to the Four Gospels. Hope this "sermon" helps!

 

[Spensed]

Accurate translation and contextual interpretation aren't mental gymnastics and aren't about typos, but meaning.

Even in the passage AngelBoy quotes, I don't know whether the translation is right, but, even assuming it is, what is being condemned? Degrading passions, being consumed with sexual passion and shameless acts. Why does it follow that that includes loving homosexual sex not consumed with out of control passion and shame? Or that gay sex is the focus of the passage rather than on lascivious and lusful sex that in this example has a gay expression? If it is a blanket comdemnation of all gay love and sex, why not just say that?

It seems to me that the anti-gay reading of these kinds of passages is much more distorting than one that actually researches the translations and textual and historical meanings.

The Bible clearly allows of more than one reading in any one of a number of areas. It's the far right fundamentalists, who want you to buy into their premise that there is only one true anti-gay reading and that all other readings are liberal mental gymnastics.

Say it ain't so, AngelBoy!

 

[AngelBoy]

Accurate translation and contextual interpretation aren't mental gymnastics and aren't about typos, but meaning.

Even in the passage AngelBoy quotes, I don't know whether the translation is right, but, even assuming it is, what is being condemned? Degrading passions, being consumed with sexual passion and shameless acts. Why does it follow that that includes loving homosexual sex not consumed with out of control passion and shame? Or that gay sex is the focus of the passage rather than on lascivious and lusful sex that in this example has a gay expression? If it is a blanket comdemnation of all gay love and sex, why not just say that?

It seems to me that the anti-gay reading of these kinds of passages is much more distorting than one that actually researches the translations and textual and historical meanings.

The Bible clearly allows of more than one reading in any one of a number of areas. It's the far right fundamentalists, who want you to buy into their premise that there is only one true anti-gay reading and that all other readings are liberal mental gymnastics.

Say it ain't so, AngelBoy!

Sorry Spensed2 –

The passages I quote from the New Testament sort of speak for themselves. I think most translations of the bible say exactly the same.

They also don’t really have a context that can explain them to mean something different to what they actually say.

As I said – it would require an extraoritary (my own Bushism!) act of “Mental Gymnastics” to interpret these in any other way

 

[Spensed]

Sorry Spensed2 –

The passages I quote from the New Testament sort of speak for themselves. I think most translations of the bible say exactly the same.

They also don’t really have a context that can explain them to mean something different to what they actually say.

As I said – it would require an extraoritary (my own Bushism!) act of “Mental Gymnastics” to interpret these in any other way

Not true. All you're doing is what the fundamentalist do. Insisting on the one reading that you want to see. If you search the web, you'll find differing views on what is being forbidden.

Plus, even taking the quote you provided, as indicated in my previous post, out-of-control gay sex appears to be forbidden, but the passage is silent on whether that also includes loving gay sex which isn't shameless, etc. Read the words on the page. It looks to me that if you just stop the girly screaming, you'll be ok.

In any event, your opinion on the issue as an atheist is kinda irrelevant. There are many gay Christians around the world, who have checked this out on a deeper level than either of us, and who don't find a problem between being gay and the Bible.

As I said, before even the Catholic Church now teaches that being gay is ok so long as your balls stay blue.

 

[bulge]

The books of the Bible, as we know it, were selected by the Council of Nicea and several passages and books were not included because of their content and the message it sent. If you research well enough,you will find that adam was married to Lilleth, a demoness, before he was married to Eve. Lilleth bore him several children which fled with their mothers departure. Also, if you are studying the King James version, you will find that several things in King James are quite loosely interpreted from the preceeding Bible due to James being quite a sexist...amoungst other things.

So so, the so-called "Dogma" is not in keeping with what really happened. If the "Dogma" is not in keeping with reality, it could as well be Christ was a queer queen as flaming as a cathedrale.

 

[Spensed]

...it could as well be Christ was a queer queen as flaming as a cathedrale.

It could indeed. What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

 

[Shepherd 2]

Answer directly to this question is no where, because there is no word for homosexuality in either Hebrew or Greek. Those are the languages Old and New Testaments are originally written. What translators have done with the passages is another matter, and there is very little agreement about much that is written.

The temptation to proof text does not fit. There is an expression that is popular, "What does the Bible say?" It is not a speaking manuscript and therefore it is always open to how it is heard and how it is interpreted in another time.
Shep+

 

[AngelBoy]

In any event, your opinion on the issue as an atheist is kinda irrelevant. There are many gay Christians around the world, who have checked this out on a deeper level than either of us, and who don't find a problem between being gay and the Bible.

But these "Liberal" Christians (around the world) are in a tiny minority - the vast majority of Christians think that being "Gay" is a sin against their faith.

If you need any confrimation of this - just vist Africa or the "Bible belt" of the USA.

A lot of issues regarding religion are subjective - however - the attitude of various branches of Christianity to homosexulaity is something that is just a matter of numbers - the antipathy of most Christians to us is not something they are either ashamed of - or even try to hide.

 

[Spensed]

I don't disagree other than it isn't a tiny minority of Christians who think gay is ok. It's a significant minority. Hence, the rift in certain Churches on the issue, etc.